Diablo House 1 is Anger Fuel and Little Else

by Patrick Ehlers

This article contains SPOILERS. If you haven’t read the issue yet, proceed at your own risk!

The first time I heard Rage Against the Machine, it was on a tape my friend Leann popped into the stereo of my 1989 Toyota Tercel. She played “Killing In The Name” and I just straight up didn’t understand what I was hearing. The song is so angry, wearing resentment and outrage as an outfit instead of as an accessory. There’s very little nuance or subtlety to the refrain “fuck you, I don’t do what you tell me,” and at 16 I thought the song was emotionally immature. Twenty years later, I may still agree with that evaluation, but I also recognize the importance of expressing a single emotion so clearly, so singularly, and so powerfully all at once. Diablo House 1 is very much like “Killing In The Name,” a story singularly focused on expressing the evils of greed and ambition.

The story relays nearly the entire life of RC and his wife Angie. RC’s stuck working a dead-end job at Fitzy’s Fast Fresh Fish Tacos until Angie badgers him in to taking on a bigger role in the company. Angie aids RC in this corporate-take-over by signing some manner of infernal contract at the Diablo House, granting RC unnatural success in business. Of course, RC’s newfound business savvy comes at a price… but it’s never totally clear what that price is. Writer Ted Adams has a perfectly functional story about greed and ego motivating a man amassing wealth and power until he’s alienated everyone he’s ever known and loved, and the existence of this supernatural house is largely an afterthought. RC is a despicable man, only ever portrayed with an ounce of empathy during the school yard romance montage at the beginning of the issue.

Artist Santipérez spends the majority of the issue in montage mode, with new settings and scenes in almost every panel. That’s distilled down to its essence here, with each of these landmark moments in RC and Angie’s lives being expressed in solely emotional terms. Joy, infatuation, desperation, fear, excitement, hope — the page is a life full of emotional turmoil.

Any other slice from their shared life is ugly ugly ugly, less an emotional roller coaster and more of an emotional vertical drop ride. Adams and Santipérez are taking shots at everyone they’ve determined haven’t earned the success they have in life and there’s no equivocating on that: RC and Angie are pieces of shit with no redeeming qualities. It makes for good anger fuel but very little else.

The conversation doesn’t stop there. What do you wanna talk about from this issue?

2 comments on “Diablo House 1 is Anger Fuel and Little Else

  1. I also think it’s fucking ridiculous the examples of unearned success Adams and Santiperez present early in the issue. The first example is Trump – okay, fine. But the second is Jackson fucking Pollock? How fucking hack is it to say that Pollock isn’t an artist because “a five year old could have painted that”? Pollock didn’t get famous for no reason, his work is evocative and bold. It’s emotional, real, and raw.

    And the last example is a Britney Spears-esque figure, which is another tired target of scorn. Yeah, she didn’t earn that, she just dances for 8 hours and day and performs 11 shows a week and is open to constant ridicule for the rest of her life because it’s easy to make fun of a teenage girl singing her heart out on stage. You can argue that she’s the fucking VICTIM of that celebrity and not the beneficiary of it.

    But, yeah, fuck Trump.

    • If we want to talk about the things Britney Spears hasn’t earned, how about we focus on the fact that she has been legally stripped of many of her rights, and is udner parental conservaship despite actually being pretty successful in her current life in Vegas. She certainly has been a victim of her celebrity, which is especially greuling as she truly had to work hard to earn that. It isn’t just thenumber of shows a week, though that is certainly hard work, but the fact that she was brought up in the incredible pressure of the Disney Machine. That’s truly hard.

      Both her and Pollock are very interesting case studies, in the idea that they didn’t earn their success. It is rooted in this idea that art isn’t take hard work and not worthy of the same consideration as ‘real work’, which is bullshit. Made worse by the other facotrs. With Pollock, it is the way that he threatens people by mkaing something that cannot be easily understood. People refuse to engage, because the idea that he is a talentless hack is better than the idea that they don’t understand. And with Spears, it is the sexist idea that because something is girly, it is beneath consideration. Ultimately, the reason both of these people don’t deserve their success is that, to acknowledge they deserve sccess is to actually engage with what they are making. And to engage with it is too threatening to consider

What you got?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s